DOD survey finds ethical struggle in war

[Gunny]

Does anyone believe that the torture of insurgents for vital information or torturing insurgents to save US Soldiers in immediate harm, put more Soldiers at risk in the long run?

when facing an enemy that is going to do it whether or not we do, I think it's irrelevant.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

when facing an enemy that is going to do it whether or not we do, I think it's irrelevant.

I'd agree if we were talking about religious extremist groups like al-qaeda but we're talking about the insurgency. The insurgency has grown in numbers and has been since the war began. IMO, I think it's relevant. I think that torture and abuse have played a small role in increasing the insurgency.

 

[Gunny]

I'd agree if we were talking about religious extremist groups like al-qaeda but we're talking about the insurgency. The insurgency has grown in numbers and has been since the war began. IMO, I think it's relevant. I think that torture and abuse have played a small role in increasing the insurgency.

The "insurgency" is many things. The Sunni and Shia insurgents aren't any different than AQ, IMO.

The sectarian tribal feudalism that has grown isn't because of us. It's sectarian/tribal feudalism that is centuries old. Saddam kept a lid on it. They're now free to return to doing what Arabs do best ... kill each other over petty differences.

 

[CSM]

I'd agree if we were talking about religious extremist groups like al-qaeda but we're talking about the insurgency. The insurgency has grown in numbers and has been since the war began. IMO, I think it's relevant. I think that torture and abuse have played a small role in increasing the insurgency.

I agree that torture does have a minor effect. I also think Gunny is on the right track. We as the occupying force are not willing to take the steps necessary to control the insurgency or anything else.

 

[Annie]

I agree that torture does have a minor effect. I also think Gunny is on the right track. We as the occupying force are not willing to take the steps necessary to control the insurgency or anything else.

Agreed, from what I've been able to 'see', without your experience is that we are unwilling to win, but unwilling to lose. So we control and try to make peace. Problem is, the enemy has a different agenda.

 

[Gunny]

I agree that torture does have a minor effect. I also think Gunny is on the right track. We as the occupying force are not willing to take the steps necessary to control the insurgency or anything else.

Well, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, using Yugoslavia as a perfect example, unless we were willing to replace the iron hand with another iron hand.

Wahabbism is a sect of Sunni Islam that was created for the expressed purpose of offsetting the expansion of Shi'ism from the east. Without a strong force keeping the lid on them, the fight between the two was bound to break out. Both are Islamic extremist groups, and the one thing they do have in common is both are taught from Day One to hate US.

Then there are the tribal camel jockeys who kill those from other tribes just for looking the wrong way at their camel. This of course, demands retaliation.

Meanwhile the kurds are just sitting by hoping they ALL kill each other off.

 

[maineman]

when facing an enemy that is going to do it whether or not we do, I think it's irrelevant.

and do you think that all of our possible enemies on out into the distant future will have exactly the same mindset?

Whatever we do to detainees today, we are telling any and every future enemy of America that that sort of treatment is absolutely acceptable for them to use on OUR soldiers captured on any battlefield anywhere or anytime in the future.

 

[CSM]

Well, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, using Yugoslavia as a perfect example, unless we were willing to replace the iron hand with another iron hand.

Wahabbism is a sect of Sunni Islam that was created for the expressed purpose of offsetting the expansion of Shi'ism from the east. Without a strong force keeping the lid on them, the fight between the two was bound to break out. Both are Islamic extremist groups, and the one thing they do have in common is both are taught from Day One to hate US.

Then there are the tribal camel jockeys who kill those from other tribes just for looking the wrong way at their camel. This of course, demands retaliation.

Meanwhile the kurds are just sitting by hoping they ALL kill each other off.

Yup. Shinseki did not suggest 300,000 troops should go over there and build schools...why do you think he left? He knew that the US would have to exert an iron will and an iron fist....

 

[CSM]

and do you think that all of our possible enemies on out into the distant future will have exactly the same mindset?

Whatever we do to detainees today, we are telling any and every future enemy of America that that sort of treatment is absolutely acceptable for them to use on OUR soldiers captured on any battlefield anywhere or anytime in the future.

Sure why not...we accept the beheadings....

 

[Gunny]

and do you think that all of our possible enemies on out into the distant future will have exactly the same mindset?

Whatever we do to detainees today, we are telling any and every future enemy of America that that sort of treatment is absolutely acceptable for them to use on OUR soldiers captured on any battlefield anywhere or anytime in the future.

Since all of our PAST and curent enemies use far worse, I don't much see it as an issue.

And you're arguing with the wrong guy. Put that scumsucking SOB bin Laden on the "field of honor" with a sword in his hand and I'll gladly meet him and chop HIS freakin' head off.

I'm ALL for combat by the rules. Line 'em up ....

 

[Care4all]

If we were attacked by terrorists....

and we are now in a War against terrorism...

why would a terrorist if picked up and imprisoned not be considered a prisoner of War and given the geneva convention standards of treatment?

why aren't they a POW?

the war is against terrorism, they are terrorists...????

why has the administration redefined these prisoners as ''illegal combatents'' if they are terrorists?

also, the GC says a ''hearing'' to determine a prisoner's status is required...whether they are POW's or they are combatents or illegal combatents, and this was not done initially for those at gitmo and elsewhere from what stories i have read about it.

care

 

[Bullypulpit]

I cant answer your poll until you qualify what "torture" means.

<blockquote><a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html>US CODE TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > &#167; 2340</a>

<h2>&#167; 2340. Definitions</h2>

As used in this chapter&#8212;
(<b>1</b>) &#8220;torture&#8221; means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(<b>2</b>) &#8220;severe mental pain or suffering&#8221; means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from&#8212;
(<b>A</b>) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(<b>B</b>) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(<b>C</b>) the threat of imminent death; or
(<b>D</b>) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality...</blockquote>

And, there's this:

<blockquote>Torture, as defined by Article 1 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, is the &#8220;cruel, inhumane, or degrading&#8221; infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime. The United States ratified the treaty in 1994 but took a reservation to the convention&#8217;s addendum on the definition of torture, deferring to the U.S. Bill of Rights&#8217; Eighth Amendment, which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. However, the 1980 court case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, in which a Paraguayan citizen won a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals&#8217; Second Circuit against a former Paraguayan police officer, established that torture falls under the realm of customary international law&#8212;thus, all countries, whether party to the Torture Convention or not, must abide. Further, the suit found that torturers become, &#8220;like the pirate and slave trader before him&#8212;<i>hostis humani generis</i>, an enemy of mankind.&#8221; Other agreements that outline similar definitions of torture include the Geneva Conventions and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. - <a href=http://www.cfr.org/publication/9209/#7>Council on Foreign Relations</a></blockquote>

That should clear things up for you.

 

[red states rule]

<blockquote><a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html>US CODE TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > &#167; 2340</a>

<h2>&#167; 2340. Definitions</h2>

As used in this chapter&#8212;
(<b>1</b>) &#8220;torture&#8221; means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(<b>2</b>) &#8220;severe mental pain or suffering&#8221; means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from&#8212;
(<b>A</b>) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(<b>B</b>) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(<b>C</b>) the threat of imminent death; or
(<b>D</b>) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality...</blockquote>

And, there's this:

<blockquote>Torture, as defined by Article 1 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, is the &#8220;cruel, inhumane, or degrading&#8221; infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime. The United States ratified the treaty in 1994 but took a reservation to the convention&#8217;s addendum on the definition of torture, deferring to the U.S. Bill of Rights&#8217; Eighth Amendment, which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. However, the 1980 court case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, in which a Paraguayan citizen won a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals&#8217; Second Circuit against a former Paraguayan police officer, established that torture falls under the realm of customary international law&#8212;thus, all countries, whether party to the Torture Convention or not, must abide. Further, the suit found that torturers become, &#8220;like the pirate and slave trader before him&#8212;<i>hostis humani generis</i>, an enemy of mankind.&#8221; Other agreements that outline similar definitions of torture include the Geneva Conventions and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. - <a href=http://www.cfr.org/publication/9209/#7>Council on Foreign Relations</a></blockquote>

That should clear things up for you.

It sure does

The US can't "torture" those covered under the GC

Terrorists are not covered by the GC


That should clear things up for you

 

[CSM]

If we were attacked by terrorists....

and we are now in a War against terrorism...

why would a terrorist if picked up and imprisoned not be considered a prisoner of War and given the geneva convention standards of treatment?

why aren't they a POW?

the war is against terrorism, they are terrorists...????

why has the administration redefined these prisoners as ''illegal combatents'' if they are terrorists?

also, the GC says a ''hearing'' to determine a prisoner's status is required...whether they are POW's or they are combatents or illegal combatents, and this was not done initially for those at gitmo and elsewhere from what stories i have read about it.

care

They are not POWs because one of the stipulations to be a "legal combatant" is they must be identifiable as such on the battlefield (uniform, insignia, etc.). Just because you have not read any stories detailing the assessment of a captured prisoners status does not mean that such assessment did not occur.

Furthermore, terrorism is not a state or organizationor even an individual. It is a tactic used by some. We, being intellectually lazy have lumped those using such tactics into the convenient term of 'terrorist'. The only analogy at the moment that I can refer to when trying to clarify the concept is the "War on Poverty". There are no combatants per say because it is a "war" on a human condition. Silly isn't it?

 

[Care4all]

They are not POWs because one of the stipulations to be a "legal combatant" is they must be identifiable as such on the battlefield (uniform, insignia, etc.). Just because you have not read any stories detailing the assessment of a captured prisoners status does not mean that such assessment did not occur.

Furthermore, terrorism is not a state or organizationor even an individual. It is a tactic used by some. We, being intellectually lazy have lumped those using such tactics into the convenient term of 'terrorist'. The only analogy at the moment that I can refer to when trying to clarify the concept is the "War on Poverty". There are no combatants per say because it is a "war" on a human condition. Silly isn't it?

they DID NOT have the hearings before a judge to determine the prisoner's status beforehand....there are a kallion articles on this back from when it was happening.

And I understand what you are saying about those not in uniform or those not fighting on a battlefield that were captured or turned in for bounty.....because they supposedly were terrorists....

BUT AS I ASKED, WHY wouldn't these suspected terrorists be POW's IF WE ARE IN A WAR ON TERRORISM......they would be the likely prisoners of war?
Why not give them POW status if they are terrorists and we are in a war on terrorism?

 

[red states rule]

they DID NOT have the hearings before a judge to determine the prisoner's status beforehand....there are a kallion articles on this back from when it was happening.

And I understand what you are saying about those not in uniform or those not fighting on a battlefield that were captured or turned in for bounty.....because they supposedly were terrorists....

BUT AS I ASKED, WHY wouldn't these suspected terrorists be POW's IF WE ARE IN A WAR ON TERRORISM......they would be the likely prisoners of war?
Why not give them POW status if they are terrorists and we are in a war on terrorism?

Terrorists are not covered by the GC and are not entitled to access to our Federal Courts

Libs are trying to fight a PC war

 

[CSM]

they DID NOT have the hearings before a judge to determine the prisoner's status beforehand....there are a kallion articles on this back from when it was happening.

And I understand what you are saying about those not in uniform or those not fighting on a battlefield that were captured or turned in for bounty.....because they supposedly were terrorists....

BUT AS I ASKED, WHY wouldn't these suspected terrorists be POW's IF WE ARE IN A WAR ON TERRORISM......they would be the likely prisoners of war?
Why not give them POW status if they are terrorists and we are in a war on terrorism?

Yes and the articles (most of them anyway) are either incomplete or inaccurate. I am VERY familiar with how the military processes prisoners (at least up until they are placed into formal facilities) and I can tell you that the assessment you speak of occurs at all levels.

I must admit that what occurs after that I have only vague knowledge so will not try to convince you that the prisoners we speak of were accorded all the rights granted under the Geneva Convention.

I will say however, that if you can tell me what uniform or insignia the enemy wears that identifies them as a member of the terrorist 'army' then I will be a lot easier to convince that they should be treated as legal combatants.

Because they do not meet the requirements for the legal combatant status. In fact, in some cases, those captured COULD be executed as spies.

 

[red states rule]

if the Democrats were consistent, they would defend the six foreign-born Muslims under arrest for planning to slaughter Fort Dix, New Jersey soldiers. I mean, the plot was exposed by a video store clerk asked to duplicate a DVD showing the Fort Dix Six using weapons and grenades and calling for jihad. Four of these guys are former Yugoslavians, one's from Jordan, the other from Turkey. Three are in the country illegally, two have green cards, and one is an American citizen.

First, the Democrats I know ought to expose the store clerk, who was obviously helping the Bush Administration illegally spy, domestically. Put this guy in jail! Democrats ought to leak his name to the New York Times. Count on it: if they do, that info will be published.

Next, the Democrats I know would prosecute the authorities who arrested the Fort Dix Six. Not only did investigators racially profile fine, upstanding members of the Fort Dix community, they questioned their immigration status -- that's nobody's business!

Then, the Democrats I know should demand that these wannabe terrorists, especially the undocumented ones, be accorded every protection granted US citizens. They should not be banished to Club Gitmo or be classified as enemy combatants. In fact, they ought to be released on their own recognizance -- lest our evil military torture the poor victims!

And finally, the Democrats I know should apologize, on behalf of America, to every Muslim nation for the mistreatment of the Fort Dix Six that they have suffered at US hands. How can we be friends with the terrorists and the rest of the world if we arrest them every time they threaten to kill a few of us? Come on, Democrats: stand up and be who you are!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050907/content/01125101.member.html

 

[Care4all]

Yes and the articles (most of them anyway) are either incomplete or inaccurate. I am VERY familiar with how the military processes prisoners (at least up until they are placed into formal facilities) and I can tell you that the assessment you speak of occurs at all levels.

I must admit that what occurs after that I have only vague knowledge so will not try to convince you that the prisoners we speak of were accorded all the rights granted under the Geneva Convention.

I will say however, that if you can tell me what uniform or insignia the enemy wears that identifies them as a member of the terrorist 'army' then I will be a lot easier to convince that they should be treated as legal combatants.

Because they do not meet the requirements for the legal combatant status. In fact, in some cases, those captured COULD be executed as spies.

What terrorists wear a uniform that we are fighting?

Does this mean we are not fighting a war since no one on the enemy's side has a uniform?

Something's just not right....not just....imo...

As far as the assessing of the captured, I will take your word for it...

 

[red states rule]

What terrorists wear a uniform that we are fighting?

Does this mean we are not fighting a war since no one on the enemy's side has a uniform?

Somethings just not right....not just....imo...

As far as the assessing of the captured, I will take your word for it...

It means they are are terrorists and not coverd by the GC

Is that difficult for you to grasp?

BYW, Dems dropped the phrase "war on terror" - I guess that is the liberal way to win the war on terror